Jump to content


Beta Testers
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

1,935 Superb

About Phoenix_jz

  • Rank
    Rear Admiral
  • Birthday 02/02/1999
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Ammiraglio di 1° Divisione Incrociatori Pesanti
    -Italian Heavy Cruiser Ace-
    -Punk Rocker-


Recent Profile Visitors

2,334 profile views
  1. I would mostly agree, although considering the disaster the tier VII is lining up to be, and the likelyhood that the Italian cruiser line will be CA dominated, it would make sense for them to implement a high tier CA as a premium - after all, Abruzzi looks to be demanding a mandatory pick of IFHE, an expensive skill which is far from a good choice for a 203mm cruiser. The defining traits of the high-tier Italian cruisers will probably be high speed on well armored hulls with high-powered AP - quite a different bill to fit then what Abruzzi does.
  2. I'll throw out some Italian ships, since plenty have spoken for other nations; Gorizia: Tier VIII Italian Heavy Cruiser (Zara-class). One of the most heavily engaged cruisers of WWII, it combined speed and heavy armor on a well-armed plaform (only 8 guns, but quite powerful high-velocity guns). Scipione Africano: Tier V Italian Light Cruiser (Capitani Romani-class). One of three completed of the class, she was a small, fast light cruiser which would be well suited to tier V opposite Bertin, who is likewise virtually unarmored. She's faster, at 43 knots, with a centerline armament of two quad torpedo launchers. Her main battery was eight (4x2) 135mm/45 guns. Folgore: Tier V Italian Destroyer (Folgore-class). 2x2 120mm/50, 2x3 533mm TT, 38 knots. She served thorughout the war on patrol and near constant escort duties, ultimately she and her captain, Ener Bettica, went down in 1942 at the Battle of Skerki Bank when ambushed by a superior British force... But not before she loosed every last shell, torpedo, and bullet on the ship. A heroic end, if ultimately futile (convoy was destroyed), she's certainly earned her spot.
  3. Cruiser terminology to use

    As I tried to explain to you in the other thread, while using CA and CL are the correct format (and most people should roughly get what you mean), using 'CA' as a general term for Cruisers within the In-game chat has become part of the game's inherent lingo. It's far easier to hit 'c' and 'a' when trying to quickly get a message across in chat than fully type out 'CA/CL' or or 'Cruiser'. And, as the whole point of having a database of in-game terms, it is important to note that CA is very commonly used to describe cruisers in general by the game's playerbase. The cruisers we have in game vary from light cruisers to heavy cruisers to 'super/large' cruisers (Moskva/Henri IV/Kronshtadt/Stalingrad), to armored cruisers, protected cruisers, scout cruisers, flotilla leaders - the point is, there's a lot of different types of cruisers that we have in-game, and in general, people just throw them under a two-letter abbreviation because it's easy.
  4. Except that's probably the plan. Rotating out the tier IX premiums makes a lot of sense as many of the major nations can get a ship up there. As for downtiered tier X's, I highly doubt they'd use Kurfürst, as that's a ship they made up themselves. Both tier IX premiums to date are historical ships, so using an H39 like FdG would probably be their preferred route, nice they were both actual designs, and laid down.
  5. Because in the game as it is now, everyone uses CA as a general term. And this is asking for definitions used in the game at the moment. I'm not arguing over it's technical correctness, or the what could be used as a better term - I'm just stating, that is the term people use.
  6. Oh, I'm sure, but that's only something WG sees, not the playerbase at large. And as long as the 419's are still around, the 457 will always be in their shadow
  7. See, the first thing to do here would be to remove the 419mm guns. As in, period, full stop. They're [edited] guns, literally just the 406 of Lioj adjusted to be a higher caliber - but somehow are able to keep the same velocity and angle of impact as the 406 at any range. Get rid of them, and then we can get a clearer image of how good or bad the 457's are beyond "not as good as the 419's"
  8. While you are correct in realistic terms, this is about creating a dictionary of in-game references - and people very commonly used 'CA' to describe cruisers in general in this game. That's what's being referred to.
  9. Fair enough, although I really wouldn't call them missiles of any kind, as that would require some kind of propulsion. All the Fritz X can do is control how it falls.
  10. It was a remotely guided bomb, not a cruise missile. It had no propulsion ability.
  11. Easy ship designations; CV - Aircraft Carrier BB - Battleship CA - Cruiser (Note; it can also be specifically a heavy cruiser, while a light cruiser specifically might be CL. However CA is a commonly used general term) DD - Destroyer Mutsu - All ships are Mutsu. Don't ask why, I have no idea.
  12. The reason to have a battleship is so that when your opponent shows up with theirs, you've got a ship to fight them. Battleships absolutely dominated the engagements they were in, which is why they tended to be so infrequent. No one wanted to get shot at by a battleship unless their bugger battleships was there as well. Hence why Campioni disengaged when he did at Calabria, because he didn't have a good picture of how badly hit Cesare was, and while engaging three 15" BBs was tenuous as it was with only two small BBs of his own, facing them with one was suicide. Likewise at Spartivento - Somerville noped the hell out of there as soon as Vittorio Veneto was able to join the action, because all he had was an old Battleship, a battlecruiser, and a carrier, and he didn't want to risk combat against a more modern battleship - which, ironically, if he had, he could've damaged the only two operational Italian BBs at the time and won a significant victory for the Allies even he had lost Renown or Ramilies. On the opposite side, Campioni decided to disengage because he thought he was facing down three battleships and a carrier, and his air support still wasn't showing up. You're looking at naval warfare of the early 1940s with the extreme benefit of hindsight. No one thought carriers or submarines or anything like them was going to win the way. Everyone figured that it would come down to a decisive battle between battleships, where the outcome would be decided in the first few minutes. The battleship, in the anti-ship role, was seen as the war-winning weapon for most major naval powers at that point. Period, full stop. For most battleships, they weren't being used to Shepard around carriers, or conduct bombardments. That's a very... I guess, a very American view of battleship warfare in WWII based on primarily pacific combat, where battleships took a secondary role to cruisers and carriers. Battleships for most nations were the center of a battlegroup, and the carriers attached were for support of the battleships. Their mission was to damage and slow the enemy battleship, in order to create a situation where the 'big guns' could go in and win a decisive victory over the enemy. they were used on convoys were the threat of enemy cruisers or battleships was believed to exist, because a battleship was a massive deterrent to anyone trying to intercept. It was only really when America started fighting the naval war against Japan in 1942 that carriers became the centers of battlefleets over the Battleship, because America had no battleships to use. The carriers and cruisers were all America had to hit back and fight with, so that's what they used. However, when the Japanese started sending battlecruisers into Guadalcanal, and the US started running out of cruisers to fight them with, that the battleships were finally sent in (as the new 27 knot BBs started arriving on frontlines). I'm gonna ignore the tank combat part, but focussing purely on the naval warfare... you're drawing some wrong conclusions. Numbers are great, but not so great as a qualitative edge in many cases. It should be noted that the actual Battle of the River plate itself, the tactical engagement, was won, pretty clearly, by the Graf Spee. He lost the game strategically - he was low on ammo and fuel, with is water and fuel purifier plants wrecked, and had a hole in his bow that made getting home quite the issue, and he hide in port and effectively defeated himself, also believing the British were more powerful than they actually were. However, in terms of the tactical action, he dominated the British cruisers. He took fairly light damage, and in return absolutely wrecked Exeter - she was a limping, listing, burning wreck after the battle with every single main gun out of action - surely sunk should Langsdorff decided to finish her. Ajax was also badly shot up, both her aft turrets disabled alongside other damage. Only Achilles was actually up to full battle efficiency - except she was low on ammunition, less than a quarter supply left! The throw weight the British were able to put out had dropped to about half what it had been at the start of the battle, and even if Cumberland were to join in the next day to aid the light cruisers it would still only be 90% of what it was when the Battle of the River Plate had started. Harwood was beaten. What he won was the strategic and mental battle outside of just shooting at the enemy. As for battleships versus naval aviation... the question was, when did that become visible. And second, when did it become meaningful. It's one thing if you've got a carrier to hit by battleship with air attacks... but what if I have air cover? My battleship is still plenty threatening in that situation. Something as inexpensive as an aircraft can destroy a tank, or a battleship, or an aircraft carrier. So can a guy with a swimsuit and a limpet mine, or a submarine. battleships only became obsoleted when it was possible to bring overwhelming air power down on a foe, and at that point you're talking 1944 and on, and primarily the Pacific. Allied planners didn't put their trust in carriers to stop Axis battleships in 1942 and 1943. They put their trust in battleship fleets to do the job, especially as those potential fights were within range of Axis air cover. Battleships may have stopped being the most optimal weapon, but they were far from obsolete, even in the late war.
  13. Ah, I see... my bad! But yeah, you'd need at least 3 paper ships to round out a CL line, assuming one keeps Abruzzi at tier VII. The San Giorgio-class were Armored Cruisers dating back to before WWI. One of them, San Marco, actually ended up being the first ship of the Regia Marina with steam turbines. Neither ship suffered any accidents before WWII, you might be thinking of something else. San Marco was converted into a radio-controlled target ship in 1931, while San Giorgio was made into a training ship. She had a major refit just before WWII, and was used as AA platform and heavy battery - she defended the port from Air attack, naval attack (drove off some British cruisers trying to attack the port), and also fired on Commonwealth troops in defense of the port. She was scuttled, however, when Tobruk fell. She ended up being a veteran of three wars; The Italo-Turkish War, the First World War, and the Second World War. As far as fitting in-game... unlikely. Like all Pre-Dreadnough BBs and Armored Cruisers, their method of armament just doesn't translate well in WoWs. With only four 10" guns for your main battery, you're far outgunned by any battleship, and though well armored for an Armored Cruiser, it's still not battleship level armor, and it's not that much faster than the BBs. My gut would say perhaps at tier II it could work against Mikasa, but it's also probably quite superior to the Mikasa - San Giorgio's main belt is proof against Mikasa's 12" guns at 5 km and beyond, while San Giorgio's 10" guns can punch through Mikasa's out to at least 10 km. Her secondary battery is slower-firing but more powerful guns, 7x 6" guns & 9x 3" to a broadside versus San Giorgio's 4x 7.5" guns and a vaping amount of 76mm guns or 100mm guns depending on the year. San Giorgio is also faster. I'd rather not bump up the RoF any more, and as much as I dislike HE spam - that's the name of the game for high-tier 152mm gun cruisers. d'Aosta's general flavor is hard to translate to Abruzzi because they were fundamentally different ships. d'Aosta was a follow-on of the Montecuccoli-class, trading half a knot loss of speed for slightly better armor protection. Abruzzi was a step away from high speed & light armor, and although technically still one of the "Condottieri" classes, was very different. Accepting a drop in top speed to 34 knots, it went for heavy armor protection, adopting a 100mm belt with a 30mm decapping plate outboard of it. Behind the 100mm belt was a 12mm bulkhead. The result was a belt that had strength equal to 150mm against cruiser-caliber shells. She also had a much better main armament, switching to the more powerful 152mm/55, mounting ten of these guns. However because WG does not model decapping, the main belt is only a little better than 100mm in-game, and for some unknown reason they raised the drag on the shells which makes them perform worse than they should. Fixing those for a start would do a lot to help. As for as the repair - it's a bandage by WG to try and fix her because she's not performing at tier VII (which she never should have been at to begin with). I can see some historical logic by it - cruisers of this class were quite durable (better armored than the Hipper's, for example), and despite taking torpedo hits proved quite capable of making it home by themselves... so perhaps that's WG's 'historical' justification?
  14. 12.6"/320mm, yeah. I imagine the Russians wanted to do so because they had plenty of 305mm ammunition supply and support because of their older BBs, and coastal guns, rather than have to pick up from scratch for a unique 320mm bore. It does, but those guns planned were specifically the old WWI-era 305mm/52's. Keep in mind, the Russians never actually built any of the guns meant for Kronshtadt, as the project was cancelled in favor of the Stalingrad-class cruisers, which were then cancelled in 1953.
  15. Next new tech tree?

    I'll be the first to say it, those will both be a long ways away, and also rather underwhelming. Italian DD designs outside of the esplotatori types really weren't that ambitious, and remained the same fairly conservative - 2x2 120mm guns, 2x3 torpedoes, 38 knots, and that was the standard for a while until the Medaglie d'Oro-class. With good ballistics on their guns the 'gunboat' role would seem to suit them best, but the Russian destroyers largely overshadow them in that respect. I'll be curious what WG comes up with for them, but the earliest we're going to see them is at best maybe Q4 of 2019.